Nice! I am surprised at how well those stickers make that stand out to be honest, but they do.

Since the last few months haven't been glider season, I have found some nice liquid sharpies with bright colors and added that ink to the bottom of my UMX Radian. I haven't had a chance to test it out yet, but I am excited to see how it works for me.

Nice! I am surprised at how well those stickers make that stand out to be honest, but they do.

Since the last few months haven't been glider season, I have found some nice liquid sharpies with bright colors and added that ink to the bottom of my UMX Radian. I haven't had a chance to test it out yet, but I am excited to see how it works for me.

Expect a video of that at some point soon with flight footage.

GB

Thanks GB.

With the WX being a high of single digits. I said no thank you. Maybe soon to be in the double digits. The FT and stickers are sweet. will try to get some footage, as a single flyer. I do my best to show?

This video below centers around me nearly losing my new Ultra Micro Radian RC plane last night on a bright and sunny evening. While it was missing from my sight for what seemed like forever, in that helpless span of time I decided I needed to ensure this wasn't going to happen again with my next plane since this one was likely gone forever.

Thankfully, I was able to regain sight with it after spinning circles for a bit. What you will find in this video are a few ideas I applied literally to the surfaces of this RC Plane.

PV: I know some of you have tons more experience doing this than me, so if this is child's play compared to what you do, please feel free to share your expertise

Rumor has it that "Copyright" statements are now common place on most of GB videos........ just a heads-up.......may lend it's self to problems down the road for the website and the publisher posting such if challenged....by anyone...!

"Any person who, with fraudulent intent, places on any article a notice of copyright or words of the same purport that such person knows to be false, or who, with fraudulent intent, publicly distributes or imports for public distribution any article bearing such notice or words that such person knows to be false, shall be fined not more than $2,500. 17 USC § 506(c)".

However, since anything published on a public domain is reproducible....:

"Anyone can slap a copyright notice on a work. And most publishers do. In fact, they often use a blanket copyright notice, even when all or part of the work is in the public domain.There is no legal requirement that a copyright notice state precisely what parts of a work are copyrighted. So many publishers don’t bother to make clear what part of a particular work the notice pertains to — if any.Modern reprints of public domain works include copyright notices, probably in the hope that people will be intimidated enough to seek licenses and pay fees to reproduce these works. Which is exactly what happens, in many cases. But here’s the thing: these works are free for all of us to use."

Recently, December 2014, YouTube was forced to shut down a particular users domain due to public challenges.....:

"False copyright claims made through misleading copyright notices and exaggerated copyright warnings are, basically, copyright abuse".............................which was the premise used in the succesfull challenge......by the way, it was related to an RC "drone" site......name of which is a secret now, just like the misleading "copyright" warning on the attached video.

If help is needed to understand the proper and legal use of a "copyright" warning on a public domain.....here's just a few tips....:

"What we’re talking about here is a particular definition of public domain, having to do with the copyright status of creative works. (This tutorial isn’t about the land owned by the US government, which is also referred to public domain.) Many people think the definition of public domain is “freely available.” They believe that creative works (including articles, images, videos, music, software) available on the Internet are fair game because they’re in the public domain. The fact is, they’re wrong. Even though something is freely available and easy to copy, that doesn’t mean it’s in the public domain.Put simply, the public domain consists of works that aren’t protected by copyright or by other legal means. You are free to use public domain works however you wish, without seeking permission, because ...

their copyrights have expired; or

the copyright owner didn’t follow certain required formalities (so they didn’t get a valid copyright); or

the works weren’t eligible for copyright in the first place; or

their creators dedicated them to the public domain.

That’s the definition of public domain we’ll be dealing with here. Okay, now that we can define public domain, are you ...

Since there’s no directory or list of public domain works that you can consult ... you must gather some facts about a work before you can figure out if it’s in the public domain. But you can figure it out.What facts do you need?You need to know whether:

the work is eligible for copyright protection in the first place

the work is published (and, if so, when and where)

the work was published with a valid copyright notice

the work’s copyright has expired

the copyright owner had to renew the copyright, and if so, whether renewal took place (this will depend on the year the work was first published)

the work is a derivative work

the work is a compilation

any other laws protect the work

the work’s copyright has been restored

Sound like a lot? It’s not so bad, actually.Alrighty then ...Since our definition of public domain means lack of copyright protection, we’d better get clear about what copyright is. Looks like it’s time for a quick definition of copyright ........:"

"Copyright is a form of legal protection provided to the authors of “original works of authorship,” including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works. This legal protection is available to both published and unpublished works. In the United States, the copyright statute is Title 17 of the US Code""According to the US Supreme Court, an original work of authorship is one that hasn’t been copied from another source (that is, it was independently created), and that displays a minimal level of creativity."

"Copyrightable works include those that can be categorized as:

literary works (includes computer software)

musical works, including any accompanying words

dramatic works, including any accompanying music

choreographic works and pantomimes

pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works

motion pictures and other audiovisual works

sound recordings

architectural works

But it’s only the specific expression in the work that gets legal protection. The ideas expressed in a work are not copyrightable."

What else is not Copyrightable........?

Ideas, methods, processes, or systems.Ideas are not eligible for copyright protection, but particular expressions of ideas are. Suppose, for example, that you published a book explaining a new system of beekeeping. The copyright in the book would prevent others from copying the particular text and illustrations describing your ideas about the system. But it wouldn’t give you the right to prevent others from adopting the ideas for commercial purposes or from developing the method described in the book. What you describe can’t be copyrighted, the way you describe it can.

Facts and events.A fact or event, as distinguished from the way it’s described in a particular work, is not copyrightable. Think about it. If the first person to write about a fact was given a monopoly over it, knowledge would be pretty slow to spread, right? So ... the facts in history or science books, and facts in the news are not copyrightable. For example, if I were to write a history of Hurricane Katrina, the facts that I reported would not be copyrightable. My particular expression of those facts would be protected, but not the facts themselves.

Names, titles, short phrases, and slogans.Individual words and short phrases such as names, titles, and slogans are not copyrightable. That means no copyright for things like names of products or services, business names, names of organizations or groups (including band names), names of individuals, titles of works, catchphrases, slogans, and short advertising expressions.But (you knew there was a but, right?) ... some highly creative and literary phrases have been held to be copyrightable. For example, a court held that Ashleigh Brilliant’s phrase “I may not be totally perfect, but parts of me are excellent” was copyrightable (defendant had copied that phrase for use on t-shirts). By the way, you can see Brilliant’s work here.Caveat: If your use of someone else’s name, slogan, or short phrase is commercial, beware of trademark law and the right of publicity.

Many (but not all) types of blank forms.Many blank forms and similar works designed to record rather than convey information cannot be protected by copyright. (For example, time cards, graph paper, account books, bank checks, scorecards, address books, report forms, order forms, diaries, etc.) To be protected by copyright, a work must contain at least a certain minimum amount of original expression ... and garden-variety blank forms don’t have enough. Because copyright does not extend to names, titles, and short phrases or clauses, it doesn’t protect things such as column headings or simple checklists (for example, a travel diary with headings for "cities" "hotels," and "restaurants"). But if a form is creative enough, it will be protected by copyright.For example, a baseball pitching statistics form was held to be copyrightable because the author selected nine stats out of the many that were available to use. Basically, it was worthy of copyright as a compilation. See Kregos v. Associated Press, 937 F.2d 700 (2d Cir. 1991).

Listings of ingredients or contents.The mere listing of ingredients or contents in recipes or formulas is not copyrightable. (They’re individual words and short phrases, and, as such, aren’t copyrightable.) Recipe ingredient lists are not copyrightable, but explanatory notes and directions are. Any photos, illustrations, or commentary (the history of a certain dish, say) accompanying a recipe would be copyrightable, too. Also note that a recipe compilation, as in a cookbook, could be copyrighted.

Familiar symbols or designs, typeface.Familiar symbols or designs, and mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring are not copyrightable. Typeface is not copyrightable, and neither is book design.The Copyright Office reconsidered the issue of copyright and book design in the 1980s ... and decided not to change its longstanding practice of not registering claims in book design. The Office stated that “the arrangement, spacing, or juxtaposition of text matter which is involved in book design falls within the realm of uncopyrightable ideas or concepts.” See 46 Federal Register 30651 (1981).As for symbols and designs, standard ornamentation such as chevron stripes, a fleur-de-lys, or a cross are not copyrightable. Neither are common geometric figures or shapes such as a hexagon, ellipse, circle, triangle, etc., or standard symbols such as an arrow or five-pointed star. Not only that ... color schemes can’t be copyrighted. (For example, a blue and green color scheme on a web site. Nope, not copyrightable.) But ... any of these elements could be protected by trademark law.

Information that is common property.Works consisting entirely of information that is common property and containing no original authorship are not eligible for copyright — for example, standard calendars, height and weight charts, tape measures and rulers, and lists or tables taken from public documents or other common sources. Neither are diatonic and chromatic scales, and standard chord charts. But material that’s been added to “common property” type information, such as instructional text, could be copyrighted.

Works that haven’t been fixed in a tangible form of expression.One of the requirements of copyright is that a work must be written down or recorded in some form. If not, no copyright. For example, choreographic works that have not been written down or recorded, or improvisational speeches or performances that have not been written or recorded are not copyrighted.Another example would be playing music that hasn’t (yet) been written down or recorded. Let’s say you’re composing a song, and you’re working it out at the piano. The sounds aren’t copyrighted because they’re not (yet) fixed. Write it down, though, and the music is copyrighted.

US laws and court decisions.Judicial opinions, administrative rulings, legislative acts or ordinances, and similar official legal documents are not copyrightable for reasons of public policy. (We’re all bound by the law, so the law must be free for publication to all.) This policy applies to such works whether they are federal, state, or local. But be aware that some state and local governments do assert copyright in their laws. (For example, Minnesota, Maine, and Oregon.) It’s far from clear that those claims of copyright are legitimate, though. There is a long line of judicial decisions supporting the notion that “the law,” in whatever form, is not copyrightable ... starting with Wheaton v. Peters in 1834 and continuing through Veeck v. Southern Building Code Congress International, Inc. in 2002. See Wheaton v. Peters, 33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 591 (1834) and Veeck v. Southern Building Code Congress International, Inc., 293 F.3d 791 (5th Cir. 2002). (You can read the Wheaton case here and the Veeck case here, if you’d like.) Once a law is enacted, the wording of that law becomes a fact (and facts aren’t copyrightable). As the court in Veeck put it:

An individual wishing to publish the text of a law cannot develop his own, unique version and still publish an authoritative copy.

Basically, the idea of the law has merged with its expression — the wording of a specific law can’t be expressed any other way. (Courts refer to this as the merger doctrine.)Here’s something to be careful of, though: while the texts of legal opinions are not copyrightable, summaries, notes, and other editorial enhancements (including the code for online formatting) are protected by copyright. Also: Be careful with digital copies! License agreements for legal texts published online or on CD-ROM may include (will almost certainly include) use restrictions. You might not get sued for copyright infringement, but for breach of contract.

Unoriginal architectural elements.Standard configurations of spaces, and individual standard features, such as windows, doors, and other common building components, are not copyrightable. Neither are common architecture moldings, or the volutes used to decorate the capitals of Ionic and Corinthian columns. Also not copyrightable are functional elements whose design or placement is dictated by utilitarian concerns.

Computations, extrapolations, etc.To be an original work of authorship, the work must not be a mere computation based on a concept or formula, or be the mere extrapolation or application of an idea or system, which would always produce substantially the same result whenever done correctly by anyone. For example, the computation of interest based upon a particular rate wouldn’t be copyrightable. Neither would the transposition of music from one key to another (it’s a mechanical act, not a creative one).

Works in the public domain.Works in the public domain include those whose once valid US copyright has expired and works otherwise dedicated to the public either voluntarily or by operation of law. Also considered part of the public domain are edicts of government, which are uncopyrightable for reasons of public policy (see above). Once a work is in the public domain, it remains in the public domain and can’t be protected by copyright. Even when it’s republished. If a publisher has added new material, such as an introduction or notes, or illustrations, the publisher would have a copyrightable derivative work ... but the copyright would protect the new material only. The original work stays in the public domain, and free for all to use. That’s how it’s supposed to work, anyway. Sadly, though, there are many publishers out there who slap all-encompassing copyright notices on works that include reprints of public domain works. This is flagrant copyright misuse, and it should be stopped. So when you see it, publicize it! Blog about it or something.Note: Regarding public domain dedications ... be careful where an author sends mixed messages! For example, statements like “this work is public domain but you may not ....” If a work is public domain, there are no restrictions on it, period. So if you come across a mixed message, ask for clarification. Never assume. (You know what they say about assuming.)

For more info on this go here. Also, be really, really skeptical when you see works touted as "copyright free." It’s very common that when someone uses the phrase "copyright free" (with regard to clipart or photos, for example), what they really mean is "royalty free." For more detail on this, see here.

Works that aren’t the result of human authorship.To be entitled to copyright protection, a work must be the product of human authorship. The term “authorship” implies that, for a work to be copyrightable, it must owe its origin to a human being. Materials produced solely by nature, by plants, or by animals are not copyrightable. Works produced by mechanical processes or random selection, without any contribution by a human author, can’t be copyrighted. So, a linoleum floor covering featuring a mechanically produced multicolored pebble design in unrepeatable, random patterns, is not registrable. Similarly, a work owing its form to the forces of nature and lacking human authorship is not registrable; thus, for example, a piece of driftwood even if polished and mounted is not registrable.

Useful articles.A “useful article” is an item whose inherent function is utilitarian. Examples of useful articles include automobiles, boats, household appliances, furniture, work tools, clothing, dinnerware, and lighting fixtures. Copyright doesn’t protect the mechanical or utilitarian aspects of useful articles (for example, the serrated edge of a knife), but ...Copyright may protect pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified separately from the utilitarian aspects of the useful article. (A useful article may have both copyrightable and uncopyrightable features, then.) So ... while the serrated edge of a knife wouldn’t be protected by copyright, a floral relief design on the knife’s handle could be. Likewise, a carving on the back of a chair or a pictorial design engraved on a glass vase could be protected by copyright, but the design of the chair or the vase itself could not.Okay then ... to be protected by copyright, those pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features must be physically or conceptually separable from the useful article. Say what?“Phyically separable” means just that — you can remove the feature and it can stand on its own. For example, a sculptured lamp base in the form of a Balinese dancer could be removed from the lamp and stand on its own as a sculpture.“Conceptually separable” means you can imagine the feature being separated from the useful article without destroying the article’s shape, even though you can’t physically remove it. For example (getting back to the examples mentioned above), the carving on the chair back or the picture engraved on the vase. You could imagine them being removed, and the shape of neither chair nor vase would be destroyed. So those decorative features would be protected by copyright.

Works created by US government employees as part of their employment.Works prepared by officers or employees of the US government as part of their official duties are not copyrightable. This is a huge category of copyright-free works in the United States. But you must be careful here. Sometimes the US government uses independent contractors to create works for it. These works may be under copyright (unless they’re works made for hire). Also, some government related entities look like federal agencies, but aren’t — and they do claim copyright in their works. Copying their stuff without permission is infringement."

So, basically, the posted works, as attached here-on, cannot be copyrighted.........and stating such lends itself to a real credibility issue.....

Note:

For more information, the following website provides the details, of which, have been previously cited here-in:

A wonderful flight with the kc808#16, will be needing a new lens D, I found my other one, why am I hear telling you this when I should be swapping it out, lol. txt file looks good.

Up I went flew some, as I gone up video shuts down, battery was not charged? Later I got up with a fully charged bat, and I did a Outer loop, and you can see how close to the pole I played it. Sorry video is not watchable, due to the lens failing. Funny I found my other lenses and lens D, so off I go swapping it out, till my new replacement arrives.

I just love the KC808 #16 Here is an offtopic, of the KC808. I hope you can say thanks Fish. shocked how well that footage looked, and maybe we can get back ontopic ,.

Hello. Novice here. I have a Spektrum DX6 and a new UMX radian. The radio binds to the aircrft, but I have no power and the airleron control moves the rudder. I think I have to reverse something but I don't know what or how.
Please help.

Hello. Novice here. I have a Spektrum DX6 and a new UMX radian. The radio binds to the aircrft, but I have no power and the airleron control moves the rudder. I think I have to reverse something but I don't know what or how.
Please help.

I would try rebinding it until it works. Things shouldn't be reversed on that radio or model.

One huge things is that it will not set until you leave it on a level surface for at least 10 seconds.